|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote:
"Charleston" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote: (Greg Kuperberg) wrote: Does "bean counter" sound like "flight safety"? No. and I have to wonder if anyone at NASA HQ can count beans very well after seeing the cost versus effectiveness of their Silent Safety Program. Anybody wonder what I meant above? Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem. Yep. Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue. Ow. This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't even at risk) that human life takes precedence over all other considerations is absurd. It's not true of any other human endeavor, and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should be placed. A little cavalier are we? Maybe the value of human life is different where you are from. In the U.S. we place the value of human life up there in the stratosphere. We especially do this when people voluntarily put heir lives on the line for their country. But they chose to put their life on the line. Rand has an excellent point. In reality the death rate in space exploration is much lower than you would expect. Well what would you expect? Let me just say that NASA bragged at Congressional hearings that the risks of loss of crew and vehicle were getting better (1 in 483 to 1 in 556, IIRC) depending on what you believe. So if we go by what NASA led Congress and the public to believe, and what the crew therefore believed that is one thing. However when Mission Control e-mails you in your orbiter and tells you not to worry, but in reality literally has no idea what they are talking about, that is quite another thing. Even with the risk, there will always be astronaut candidates. Correct and astronauts will always be willing to fly when there are significant risks because it is what they live for. It is up to management to control the program risks, not the astronauts. I will never forget the foolhardy statement astronaut Robert Crippen made after Challenger. He said he'd go fly a shuttle out of Vandenberg AFB, the incompleteWest Coast Spaceport. That site was not ready, the filament wound SRB cases failed a structural loads test, and Discovery, the orbiter supposed to go fly from there was sitting at KSC as a cannibalized hangar queen. Don't confuse an astronaut's "what me worry let's go fly" attitude with what it takes to run a safe program. Astronauts are by their nature eternal optimists. It does not cheapen their lives. It does not make them less valuable either. At this rate, however, there will not always be shuttles. I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type accident though, and it is over. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type accident though, and it is over. Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost a crew. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Charleston" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type accident though, and it is over. Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost a crew. Now you are sounding the Bob Haller alarm. http://makeashorterlink.com/?D17221665 http://makeashorterlink.com/?H25212665 NASA flew with one or two orbiter for a few years with no problems even as the flight rate was increasing. NASA could fly with one orbiter if necesssary. If an orbiter is lost in transit or due to an accident in the VAB or OPF where no crew is lost, the damaged orbiter will be cannibalized for parts while the program continues. OTOH, if another crew is lost, it's over. I'll even go out on a limb and say if they lose an orbiter in any in-flight manner in which the crew survives and NASA can say we have had a "successful failure", the program will continue. You are wrong. The crew is primary, you are just too stubborn to see that NASA does put flight safety above vehicle recovery. To say otherwise insults all of those at NASA and its contractors who work crew and flight safety issues every day. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
Well if another orbiter is lost so is using the vehicle for spare parts. Politically the public will get mad watching more deaths rerun endlessely on tv. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
... "Hallerb" wrote in message Another screw up kills the shuttle program, If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you answered my previously asked question about management meetings? What hard evidence can you provide that, if NASA management had met according to your demands (that is, held meetings according to your interpretation of the rules even if they would not have been productive), things *would have* turned out differently for Columbia? That is a rather unfair question that can not be answered Scott. We can never know what might have happened if management had attended all of the meetings. Let me ask you a similar question: "What hard evidence can you provide that, if NASA management had attended all meetings they could or should have attended that things *would have* turned out the same? Your silence on the matter is nothing more or less than an admission on your part that you are wrong. That's a stretch. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you answered my previously asked question about management meetings? What hard evidence can you provide that, if NASA Ahh NASA designs its OWN RULES! Taking into accout the entire operation. Now why design a flight rule and then ignore it? Obviously the investigation has found not having those meetings and vacationing over the king holiday while a shuttle was flying was a poor management decision. Geez we hardly fly anymore you would think upper managers would be happy to atrtend to the few fllying days we have...... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ... "Hallerb" wrote in message ... If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you answered my previously asked question about management meetings? What hard evidence can you provide that, if NASA [restored cut] management had met according to your demands (that is, held meetings according to your interpretation of the rules even if they would not have been productive), things *would have* turned out differently for Columbia? Ahh NASA designs its OWN RULES! As it should. Do you think the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be making NASA's rules? Of course not. If we follow your logic though, one can argue that by not following NASA's rules at JSC, then KSC does not have to follow the rules, which leads to ever more relaxed rules, which leads to rules that are really guidelines, which leads to flying with debris impacting and damaging the orbiter a lot more, which led to the fate of STS 107, IIRC. If the Department of Housing and Urban Development has a rule that if you break an important rule you are terminated immediately then, ya they might have better rules than NASA but then someone would still have to enforce the rules which would require a rule to enforce the rules. Bottom line is follow the rules and then nobody can say otherwise. It's called discipline some places. Obviously the investigation has found not having those meetings and vacationing over the king holiday while a shuttle was flying was a poor management decision. Because there is no sign that it was. How about answering my question? What kind of sign do you need? -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report | Jorge R. Frank | Policy | 30 | August 2nd 03 08:37 PM |
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight | Greg Kuperberg | Space Shuttle | 55 | July 30th 03 11:53 PM |
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 48 | July 30th 03 11:53 PM |
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight | Charleston | History | 7 | July 26th 03 08:09 PM |
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight | Rand Simberg | History | 0 | July 26th 03 05:12 AM |